RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

crumpets -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 9:58:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
Let me suggest that you make it a goal to familiarize yourself with some regular posters more.

I generally familiarize myself with any poster who writes to me (since I never respond to an email without reading every single word in the profile and in their journal, at the least). Those posters who have emailed me, are the only ones that I know anything about, and that's only because I read their profiles.

The rest are all lumped up together, or, more accurately, each post stands out on its own.
Of course, that means I might fall prey to a sock that makes a single reasonable post, or, in the case that I think LC was warning me about, an unreasonable peson who simply agreed with my position but who may have been baiting me all along.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
Interacting with people on these boards is much more helpful if you have an awareness of the people you are exchanging messages with.

Well, this can't be overstated.
It's work though, to understand where every poster is coming from 'yanno...
it's easier to simply respond to their post as if it is the only fact that matters.
(In fact, that's how many people react to my posts - which - I fully expect and understand the logic of.)
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
I am not saying that you should start trying to get too personal with people-please don't.

Heh heh ... Ill take that positively ...
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
But I like to think I have a feel for a lot of people on the board, based solely on their postings.

You probably connect one poster from one thread to another.
I don't generally do that.
So, I agree. You would fall into traps less often than I would.
Unless I'm purposefully on the prowl, I fall into ever trap ever laid for me.
I'm easy that way.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
I can count on two hands the number of times I have exchanged private messages with forum posters in all the time I have been here.

Well, I have about 35 pages of accrued email, but the number of actual people in daily contact is probably on the order of a half dozen for me.
So that means I think I know a half dozen posters here reasonably well (using the metrics I think you're inferring) and that's about it.

What you're saying is that this is not enough.
Fair enough.
It's not.

But , I don't converse with anyone who doesn't INITIATE the conversation first with me.
I've always been that way (I used to be called shy but it's not really shyness - it's something else - whatever you call it - social ineptitude some called it here, I think.)

So, if they don't converse first with me, I won't get to know 'em otherwise than what they post on the boards.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
So my observations are based entirely from their public posts.

Ooops. I had thought you meant mails.
Yeah. Some people post a lot so they're easier to correlate than the ones who only post a few times.
I think my post count is a thousand by now, so, if anyone wanted to correlate my thoughts, they'd have enough to do so by now.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
Considering that you have Asperger's, it would take more effort on your part, but it can be done.
And this would be a much more pleasant and rewarding site for you.

Probably good advice.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
My social skills are fine, yet I hated the whole dating scene in high school as well. The pretense, awkwardness, people trying to be what they thought others wanted, juvenile minds in raging hormonal bodies--the absurdity of it all drove me away from that very early on. Funny thing is, turned out to be one of the best times of my life, because of that.

I had a ton of fun in high school too, but dating wasn't my strength.
I never really had to date though, just as I never had to look for a job.
Things just fell into my lap and I went with the flow.

I was a successful football player, active in clubs, e.g., I was the varsity club president starting from my sophomore year, a wrestler, on the track team, and well liked and known to all. In fact, professionally, I'm always one of the most well known people at certain companies, where people, by far, know me more than I know them. I can't tell you how many times people tell me that they know me and I don't remember them at all.

It was the same in high school. So, dating in high school wasn't really dating. It was some girl asked some other girl to have me ask her on a date that I already knew she wanted me to ask her to go on.

It was only in college, suddenly far away from home town success, and in a world where the school had only recently changed from being all boys to being coed, that I started realizing that I could/would never figure out the actions of women.

At this point, I regressed back to my high school days where I stopped trying and I just let them come to me, or not.
So, they run the show. Not me. Makes it a LOT easier to figure 'em out that way.

Maybe that's why I am who I am inside? Hmmmmmm...... (that might be an epiphany in the works)



theHouseofAvalon -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 10:00:19 PM)

quote:

I wonder if that is truly the case that the delineation isn't almost exactly the same as it is in swingers clubs, figuratively speaking.


It is nothing like a swingers club. Such clubs tend to have rooms and even locking doors. Instead, we are more likely discussing a large open building with different areas not separated by walls or ropes unless the wall section is part of the scene as in a medical clinic with the counters and cabinets and chrome instruments, largely being the needle play area. Sometimes a scene turns into a demonstration and the bottom welcomes "practice" efforts by onlookers. One stays at least ten feet from most scene areas, perhaps less in the cage area


quote:



So, I have multiple areas of confusion and concern with the stated transaction (as I understand it):
1. The house is supposed to train and indoctrinate both staff and customer in abiding by and enforcing the rule to keep the lurkers at their distance, yet,
2. The scenemaker is (often) supposed to ALSO make it clear also (in part, by setting the rope which, in this case, doesn't seem to exist - which makes #1 all the more important)
3. That neither of those two responsibilities took place or that they were ignored by the lurker seems to be the most obvious conclusion.


1. Yes. The members are screened and know the rules. New members or guests of members are watched carefully.
2. No.
3. Actually, I've never seen a "lurker" attempt to interfere with play. Nonetheless, the Dom is able to easily halt the intrusion if needed. If it is just getting too close there is a quiet reminder (to preserve the scene) and forgiveness. If it is a wanker taking liberties then there is no forgiveness and there is expulsion.

Frankly, innocently getting too close and spoiling the focus on the Dom or submissive is a fairly common occurrence with new members and they are just gently reminded of why space must be given the players. Safety is the biggest concern I have seen, the two most common problem are new Doms not keeping their subs hydrated and a big issue, bringing pointed scissors into the Dungeon for use in cutting the sub away if needed. Both are big no-nos.



Awareness -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 10:02:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5ou
quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
So, again, I apologize. I overstepped my bounds. I overstepped even my own words and thoughts. I was a schmuck. (I am a schmuck?)

See, now you are just baiting us.[:D]
No, he just exposed his belly and pissed all over himself. Shit like this is why I find male subs pathetic.



Greta75 -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 10:23:20 PM)

quote:

I had a very long discussion recently on WHY the hostile occupation of both Japan and Germany turned out so well, as compared to, say, a similar "occupation" of Iraq or Afghanistan, where, we concluded, tentatively anyway, that the difference was COMMON EXTERIOR forces, such as the Russians, were the real enemy of both Japan and Germany, while NOT COMMON INTERIOR FORCES are the current enemy of a stable Iraq and Afghanistan.

However easy (by way of comparison) is it to understand the causes and effects of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan compared to understanding the common dating dynamic, we must dutifully, if belatedly, return our viewers to their regularly scheduled program!

The failures of countries like Iraq and Afghanistan was because no hostile tactic of the old days were even being used. Can you imagine doing that in current day? PC Police will all go nuts! These countries are all handled with kids gloves.



crumpets -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 10:29:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite
Pushing boundaries whenever they can is inappropriate whether it is vanilla or BDSM-oriented interactions.

I agree I overstated the point I was trying to make.
The main point I failed to make (and I should STOP trying to make) is that there aren't always CLEAR indications of boundaries, especially in informal social interactions.

Someone else said it better (was it LC?) where she said that a touch on an arm that is then pulled away is a strong signal that they don't want to be touched. I would agree. I think *most* signals are far more subtle than that, and, I would agree that I shun ANY attempt at touch partially because of that.

Heck, there are posters here whose house I have been to at parties where I've been there until the wee hours of the night time and time again, and in their bedroom, looking at their sex toys, etc., and I NEVER made a single move toward them (I never do).

ALL my female relationships I have EVER had in my life were INITIATED by the women.
Almost all dates were on THEIR suggestion.

Now, on the date, I took imitative like "Do you want to get a bite to eat", and the likes of that, but, the actual act of dating was always on their initiative. Same with jobs by the way, they just always fell into my lap such that I've never looked for a new job in my life. I just accept offers if they come my way.

So, maybe I'm different in that respect, but, also, I never initiate the "touch" part either.
Certainly I talk up a storm, but, braggadocio aside, no woman ever felt the need to slap me in my life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite
It comes across to me like you are overanalysing it on a logical basis, but that you still have a struggle with understanding that some of your hypotheticals are actively hurtful to people, and strongly imply that you plan to push boundaries whenever you think you can get away with it, and that you think that is reasonable/justifiable behaviour in other people.

That is a fair enough criticism of my words. I can't defend myself against them.
I can only try to explain the actions of others, as, I, myself, have never (to my knowledge) pushed the boundaries to the point of being slapped or being rude.

Even my college-aged examples were of women (Debbie) who became girlfriends for years thereafter, so, if I was a bit pushy on the first date with Debbie, it's only because SHE was really orchestrating the entire endeavor all along, and I was bewildered that she WANTED me to keep going even though she was pushing my hand away when I did but she was still kissing me passionately, so I didn't walk away - but then after fifteen minutes, I'd put my hand back where it was before and this time it got another inch before she pushed it away - but she was STILL kissing me the entire time so I'd not walk away and then ten minutes later I'd put my hand a bit further and we'd go on and on until that night (she was a freshman, I was a junior and it was the first week of school and she was my first and only girlfriend throughout my undergraduate four years of college - so - that tells you my lack of experience right there).

In the end, we made love that night, and we were a couple until my first year of graduate school (she eventually got kicked out of school because she didn't study except when we studied together and I had to study a lot so she studied a lot with me), but, I am STILL bewildered by her actions that first night we met, because her actions didn't make sense then, and they still don't make (much more) sense now.

Funny though, I don't recall EVER asking her about that.
I probably should have asked her what the heck she was thinking.
It was pretty clear what I was thinking (at 20 years of age).
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite
I hadn't had that impression of you before this thread, and really thought better of you.

Since you have a more acute sense of people than I, will not try to defend my actions (as some of them were indefensible anyway). You can only see who I am in the aggregate. Or, you can ask some of the people here privately who know me, but it's not up to me to farm them out, so, I only hope that they contact you if they're so willing, but, if they don't - then all you know of me is what I have written - and - well - that's not flattering in some of the posts here.

You will note that I am a gentleman throughout all personal actions though (and others can prove that, if they see fit to do so).



crumpets -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 10:35:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
No, he just exposed his belly and pissed all over himself. Shit like this is why I find male subs pathetic.


Heh heh ... I already forget who it was, but, was it you who boxed me into that corner?

Normally I lay the traps for the idiots, but, in your case (if it was you), then kudos to you for laying the trap.

However, to the tune of your own words, if I was so pathetically easy to trap, then you didn't prove much, by way of your acumen despite your clear attempt at braggadocio.



crumpets -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 10:42:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75
The failures of countries like Iraq and Afghanistan was because no hostile tactic of the old days were even being used. Can you imagine doing that in current day? PC Police will all go nuts! These countries are all handled with kids gloves.

I agree that the failure is complicated by what you imply are "kid gloves" being used, plus, as you may note, both Japanese and German people were used to being ruled by strong leaders who had the ENTIRE country on their side - whereas - in Iraq and to some extent in Afghanistan, that dynamic doesn't really exist.

Worse though, there is no common enemy at their gates, for example, Russia, for both the occupier and the occupied to defend against.
The enemy, in the case of these two failed regimes, comes from deeply rooted schisms emanating from within - and - as you know - that is always the most dangerous enemy of all.



MariaB -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 10:58:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul


quote:

crumpets
I assume the myriad and sundry lurkers pay the bills, so my assertion to follow depends on that as an assumption (owners of clubs can certainly tell me otherwise as I take correction well).
That makes the "regulars" the "talent". The regulars, who tend to have play partners and prepared scenes, are the "show". Otherwise, it's just a room full of people, which, I guess, is fine and dandy, but, they make bars for that purpose of meet and greet.

Yes, without the people who are playing, there is no show and therefore no reason for people to go there as opposed to any other standard bar.

Which is exactly why the players are the one that clubs want to protect, not clueless and creepy lurkers.

So no, the lurkers do not pay the bills.

The players pay the same money that the lurkers pay. The players attract lurkers. Without the players, there would be no creepy lurkers. Without creepy lurkers, there would possibly be even more players.

So who is more valuable to a club-the players or the lurkers?

Don’t know about you, but if I were a club owner, I wouldn’t give a flying fuck if the lurkers got their wittle feelings hurt. But I would make damn sure that the players had nothing but shiny happy feelings all around, so they would return and bring more people with them.



Do you consider a voyeur to be a lurker? or is your definition of lurker someone who gets in the way of play?




LadyPact -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/17/2016 6:13:11 AM)

I do want to take a moment to thank everyone who has been/is participating in this thread. It turned out to be a pretty good discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
I was not comfortable at all. It wasn't like I thought I would have been accosted. It's just that they perceived signals that I definitely didn't provide.
They were guessing, of course. They were hoping, for sure.
But, they were dead wrong, as, well, I harbor a lot of anger over gay men, so, one would never be able to touch me and get away with it.

While I think it's unfair to have anger over an entire category of people for whatever resentment may be held from your past, some of this is very useful. Even without a preconceived notion of thinking they would be accosted, the guessing and hoping of others puts the bottom in the same position. That gives you an understanding of her situation.

quote:

But, my point was that it was highly uncomfortable. It was like. Shit. You can't even walk down a damn trail without some guy thinking he's gonna get fresh meat out of your hide.

Precisely. Same thing happened when the gal just wanted to experience some wax.

quote:

I was trying to get that idea across, which is that you don't normally explicitly bring a written consent form with you everywhere you go, but that there are myriad social cues which take the place of written consent forms in day-to-day dating interactions.

Which is true of most casual play situations. There are the rules of the club but the top and bottom are still verbally negotiating. Since neither the gal or I knew Mr AT&T, the closest you can get would be observing other people's dating at any place other people might mingle. Even if you were at a nude beach, and you saw two people interacting with each other, the idea that you'd reach out to touch one of them on the butt wouldn't be ok. Not even if they happened to look at you when you were also strolling on the beach.



Wayward5oul -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/17/2016 6:38:40 AM)


quote:


Do you consider a voyeur to be a lurker? or is your definition of lurker someone who gets in the way of play?



I don't really consider it at all. To me spectators are just that, until they do something to set them apart, as they did in the OP. Then they are just placed in the dumbass category.

The only reason I used the term here is because that is what was used in the parts I was quoting, and I thought the person I was addressing would be able to focus on the point I was trying to get across to him if I used the same words he did.



SlaveLucille -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/17/2016 9:08:22 AM)

Why are you disrespectful of Men? Are they not created to rule over women and provide for and protect we women?



LadyPact -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/17/2016 9:22:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlaveLucille
Why are you disrespectful of Men? Are they not created to rule over women and provide for and protect we women?

First, allow me to point out to you that this isn't a good troll thread.

Second, does it sound like the man who tried to touch the woman without her consent was protecting her or the reputation of the club?

Sorry, I don't do that male supremacy bullshit.




Andalusite -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/17/2016 9:23:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets

I agree I overstated the point I was trying to make.
The main point I failed to make (and I should STOP trying to make) is that there aren't always CLEAR indications of boundaries, especially in informal social interactions.

Someone else said it better (was it LC?) where she said that a touch on an arm that is then pulled away is a strong signal that they don't want to be touched. I would agree. I think *most* signals are far more subtle than that, and, I would agree that I shun ANY attempt at touch partially because of that.

I agree that a lot of things are non-verbal and part of the give-and-take. However, that didn't apply to Mr. Handsy McCreeperston in the original incident, since there weren't any signals going on, because they couldn't see him until he tried to touch the bottom's bottom!



quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
Even my college-aged examples were of women (Debbie) who became girlfriends for years thereafter, so, if I was a bit pushy on the first date with Debbie, it's only because SHE was really orchestrating the entire endeavor all along, and I was bewildered that she WANTED me to keep going even though she was pushing my hand away when I did but she was still kissing me passionately ...

In the end, we made love that night, and we were a couple until my first year of graduate school (she eventually got kicked out of school because she didn't study except when we studied together and I had to study a lot so she studied a lot with me), but, I am STILL bewildered by her actions that first night we met, because her actions didn't make sense then, and they still don't make (much more) sense now.

I agree that it sounds like she was giving mixed signals. To me, keeping kissing but pushing your hand away means, "not yet" not "no," though I personally would feel uncomfortable with that approach. I think it was more common for women to do that sort of thing without being verbally clear 20 or 40 years ago than it is now, at any rate. Regardless, just because it worked on her doesn't mean it is the right approach for all men toward all women, especially ones they haven't even talked with yet, like Mr. Lurker.



Andalusite -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/17/2016 9:31:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

Which is exactly why the players are the one that clubs want to protect, not clueless and creepy lurkers. So no, the lurkers do not pay the bills. The players pay the same money that the lurkers pay. The players attract lurkers. Without the players, there would be no creepy lurkers. Without creepy lurkers, there would possibly be even more players.


Do you consider a voyeur to be a lurker? or is your definition of lurker someone who gets in the way of play?

Wayward already responded, but my take on it is that "creepy" is the operative word here, not "lurker." The wallflowers are fine, and I know it's tough for single guys to find play on the spur of the moment at the clubs. As long as they're being respectful (not interfering with scenes, not touching without permission, etc.) they're welcome, as far as I'm concerned.

However, the creepy lurkers like Mr. Touchy actively make people feel unsafe to be naked, to be playing, and the club management should indeed kick them out when they do things like interfere with other peoples' scenes, try to sneak in a grope, etc. Sometimes, even if they don't actually do or say anything inappropriate, they just look at people as though they're trying to flay their skin off, rather than merely undressing them with their eyes.



DocStrange -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/17/2016 11:09:03 AM)

I do agree this was good post. Part of the reason I enjoy the forums is the sharing of information. Information that was not as easily available when I learned about BDSM. And this post is an excellent real life example of things that happen in real life at events. For those new to the lifestyle and events, they often do not know proper etiquette. This is a great example for people to learn from. Thanks for sharing.



crumpets -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/17/2016 11:24:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
The only reason I used the term here is because that is what was used in the parts I was quoting, and I thought the person I was addressing would be able to focus on the point I was trying to get across to him if I used the same words he did.


I probably was the one who brought up the word "lurker", because that's a word I've been using for decades to describe the shiveringly creepy guys who endlessly follow the women or couples around in the NY clubs I had been to decades ago (I haven't been back to seedy NY in decades so it has to be decades ago, with a plural on the end of it).

In those crowded NY clubs, there were only two kinds of single men, one of which I'd agree with someone prior that is more likely termed something akin to an innocent "spectator", while the second type of (decidedly much more creepy) guy is the type to constantly follows people around such that you can't shake them (like a bad dream that just won't go away).

I had placed LP's offender into the decidedly creepy lurker category, but I admit to a lack of clarity when I later discussed "paying customers", who, in most cases, would not be placed into the get-away-from-me-you-creep lurker category until/unless they became like those creepy guys who followed me around when I simply tried to explore the gay section of the PE up in SF or when I simply went for a walk at the SF 208 South "Vista Point".



crumpets -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/17/2016 11:25:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SlaveLucille
Why are you disrespectful of Men? Are they not created to rule over women and provide for and protect we women?


Your traps need to be more cleverly set.

See the boastful guy prior for learning how to set them to seem more innocent when you lay them.



sunshinemiss -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/17/2016 12:45:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MisterP61


quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets


quote:

ORIGINAL: sunshinemiss
Men KNOW they are not supposed to touch women's behinds if they don't know said woman.


Actually, three or four consecutive wrongs don't make a right.

I don't know the situation, but, there could have been as many as this many wrongs ...
POTENTIAL WRONG 1. The orientation either didn't exist, or sucked at explaining boundaries ...
POTENTIAL WRONG 2. The dungeon master didn't see the infraction or didn't enforce the boundaries ...
POTENTIAL WRONG 3. The scene players didn't themselves delineate any boundaries...
POTENTIAL WRONG 4. The perpetrator himself may have chosen to ignore all those boundaries...

Anyway, the real question in the OP was whether the curt response from the OP was warranted, and, my recommendation to that request would depend solely on whether the owner wants that person (or anyone like him - which is pretty much lots and lots and lots of paying customers) to be a paying customer in the future.

If "I" wanted a paying customer to return, yet, that paying customer either didn't know the rules (i.e., no orientation or lousy orientation, no boundary or lousy boundary settings, etc.) or he chose to flout the rules (I think I made it clear that this is a definite possibility that I do not overlook!), then it's more appropriate to be nicer in a first approbation than to not be nicer by a long shot.

From one NYer to another, how about you stop the bullshit. First off kink has not one fucking thing to do with this. Zero. Zip. Nada. It is illegal to touch any person in a sexual way without consent. Period. There is never a time where it is legal. It is at best sexual harassment, and at worst sexual assault (rape).

Any club that puts the "paying" customer (oh, by the way so is the person whom they were trying to violate) ahead of the risk of lawsuits and numerous other disadvantageous possibilities has a very shitty "corporate model" they are working with and will almost always fail and close their doors.

So Yes. To Me diplomacy was out the door the second he started to reach out to touch someone he had no permission to touch. The fact that he still has ten fingers is a testament to the restraint She showed. If I was with Her there, I would not have been part of the scene with Her bottom, but I am pretty sure I would have been part of the "scene" of ensuring the Richard Cranium's activity was very well known to the clubs proprietors.



Thank you.



crumpets -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/17/2016 7:36:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite
I agree that a lot of things are non-verbal and part of the give-and-take. However, that didn't apply to Mr. Handsy McCreeperston in the original incident, since there weren't any signals going on, because they couldn't see him until he tried to touch the bottom's bottom!


Without naming names, someone kindly wrote to me to ask me to strongly consider if "I" was the person who was potentially almost violated, how would "I" feel about it?

Following through on this thought experiment in empathy, when I swapped myself into the sub's space, a whole different feeling instantly washed over me, from head to toe, like a sudden wind shifting unexpectedly from one direction to a completely different tack.

That thought experiment on empathy worked instantly on me because I mentally put myself in those shoes, where LP or any particular Domme had, for example, restrained me bent over, perhaps wearing a humbler, where my butt was exposed while she melted votive candles on me (or whatever). Instantly, as I put myself in the highly vulnerable sub's shoes, I was instantly thinking, the last thing that I would want to be in my head space would be to want to worry about the "customers" violating me.

In my good head space, I would want to be able to TRUST that the Domme would ensure my safety (and that the HOUSE would ensure my safety too! And that the customers would RESPECT my safety!)

In fact, as I thought about it more, putting myself literally in the shoes of the person LP was playing with, I realized the LAST thing I'd want to be worried about is that I'm in danger of being touched or molested by customers of the house (especially since I, myself, have been trailed by lurkers, some of whom had their wanker out, disgustingly dripping, way back in the days of NYC clubs).

In this thought experiment, I would want the Domme first, to ensure I am not violated, and then the house, and if that didn't happen, then the whole headspace of me (and of the Domme too, if she cared about me) would be upset.

So, I realize now it's a delicate balance, and it's a safety and basic rights issue, that I totally ignored in my incorrect attempt prior to elevate the discussion to "all women" or to "all men".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite
I think it was more common for women to do that sort of thing without being verbally clear 20 or 40 years ago than it is now, at any rate. Regardless, just because it worked on her doesn't mean it is the right approach for all men toward all women, especially ones they haven't even talked with yet, like Mr. Lurker.


In reality, I was generalizing from A SINGLE EXPERIENCE to "all women" and "all men", which was utter folly on my part.
Even worse, I only realized, after thinking hard about this over the past few hours, that what CONFUSED me most, was that this was, actually, a FLR that I had NEVER REALIZED existed until this very moment, oh so many years later.

No wonder I was confused!

I only now realize that I was really following Debbie's lead the entire time (and the entire 3 years we were boyfriend and girlfriend, now that I think about it). Sure, I did everything I could for her but, for the most part, she picked me (out of plenty of guys, considering the school had only recently converted from all boys to coed). That first night we had met, I liked her, but, she also liked me, so, I think, only now, I realize, she probably had in her mind everything that happened, and I was just playing along, it turns out - even though I THOUGHT I was the one in control!

Whenever I didn't play along, she gave me signals to return to the quest. When I stopped (after she told me to stop), I was then confused that she wanted me to go on. This happened quite a few times, so, it wasn't an accident on her part I think.

I'm only now (belatedly) realizing she led me, like a pet is led on a leash, even though there was no physical leash involved!
I think THAT is why I was so very very very confused (thinking back on this, many years later).

She was so much in control that she even decided the dates.

For example, once she even had a friend leave a 20-dollar bill near a washing machine since both of us habitually did our wash together, and when I found the money cleverly laid for me to find, she suggested I take my girlfriend out to dinner (I only found out about this plan much later, but it worked and we had a lovely dinner together with wine, which was my first ever at a restaurant).

We must have been stronger together than alone though, because she flunked out of college AFTER I left for graduate school, but, I made sure she was prepared for her tests when we were both undergraduates, as I would check out her schedule and make sure I had her books with me (no Internet in those days, so, most studying was from books).

Anyway, it was a mistake for me to equate my first confusing experience with what I now just realized (only now) was a FLR, to all men and all women.

Worse, I should have made it clear that I never thought that what the lurker did as explained by LP, was at all appropriate, as it was not in the least (where the thought experiment doubly underscored that error, like a whip hitting the same spot twice, only harder the second time during the impromptu thought experiment).



DesFIP -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/17/2016 9:58:48 PM)

Crumpets: by walking down a well known meat market, that is giving signals that you are looking for a casual, gay sex interaction. You don't take that path otherwise.

In Fire Island, it's considered okay to whistle at or make a catcall to a single male. It's not considered okay to casually grope him. However, if you take the inland trail between the Pines and the Grove, it's considered okay to do that. Because you wouldn't even know about that path if you weren't looking for such an interaction.



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625